
V\Ssjoo 


















THE ELECTION LAW OE LOUISIANA 


AND THE HISTORY OF ITS ENACTMENT/ 


By HUGH J. CAMPBELL, 

') 

JUDGE OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS. 




't 


% 



















'S K i ? 3 C> 

* L-% C 






















THE ELECTION LAW OF LOUISIANA 


A History of Suffrage in Louisiana Since Reconstruction. 


New Orleans, November 21, 1876. 
General James A. Garfield: 

Dear Sir —One of the distinguished 
gentlemen from the Northern States who 
in company with several others had vis¬ 
ited our State for the purpose of examin¬ 
ing our laws on elections and the methods 
used in ascertaining and declaring the 
vote requested me to furnish an ac¬ 
count of the origin and nature of our 
election laws. As this gentleman has re¬ 
turned North, I take the liberty to ad¬ 
dress my reply to you. 

Prior to 1870 the election laws of 
this State were similar to those of other 
States; the elections were held at regu¬ 
larly appointed polls, and the votes 
counted by a certain class of officers 
known as judges or inspectors of elec¬ 
tion. These officers were clothed by law 
with the power of making returns. 
This power consisted, first, of official 
authority to receive the votes, then 
to count them, which counting in¬ 
volved the semi-judicial authority of 
accepting or rejecting votes, as they 
were legal or illegal—this power, of 

course, being limited by law; and 

the additional power of making the offi¬ 
cial certificates of the result of the vote 
technically called the return, this return 
being prima facie evidence of election. 
The Louisiana law in all these respects, 
prior to 1870, conformed in general out¬ 
line to the laws of other States. The 
last election held under this law 

was the election held in Novem¬ 
ber, 1868. In 1870 the law was 

changed, and a wide departure taken 


in the methods of election and in the 
powers and duties of the respective offi¬ 
cers of election from the old law of the 
State and from the laws of other States. 
The most material change, however, and 
the one around which the other mi¬ 
nor changes were grouped was this: 
In depriving the commissioners of elec¬ 
tion presiding at the several polls 
of the function and authority which such 
officers had previously exercised, of mak¬ 
ing the final and official count of the vote, 
and of making the certificate or return 
of the same, which constituted the prima 
facie evidence of election; then, in 
lessening the number of returning officers 
to five for the whole State, and investing 
these officers with the above named func¬ 
tions and authorities of returning officers; 
namely, those of making the final and 
official count, and the only certificate and 
return of election known to the law. The 
law then went further, and invested these 
five returning officers with another power, 
namely, when in any section or precinct 
of the State the election had been nulli¬ 
fied by wholesale violence, disturbance, 
riot or intimidation, or by wholesale fraud, 
the power to examine into the nature and 
extent of these acts of violence or fraud; 
and where they had been of such a nature 
and extent as to render the election null 
and void, so to declare, and to refuse to 
count the so-called votes, which had thus 
been made null and void. 

Thus stating concisely the material 
change made in the law of election, by 
the legislation of 1870, I will proceed, 
to state briefly some of the principal 






2 


* 


facts in the history of the State, prior to 
the enacting of the law which led to 
this change. For a period of about five 
or six months prior to the election of 1868, 
this State was the theatre of much and 
widely extended violence, bloodshed and 
murder. Owing to many causes, proba¬ 
bly those resulting from the war just 
closed, and from the dissatisfaction of a 
large class of people with the changes 
which had been wrought by the results of 
the war, the political opposition, during 
the canvass, to the Republican party took 
the shape of a secret and armed political 
society, known as the Knights of the White 
Camelia. By the records of the .legislative 
committee appointed in 1868, and of the 
congressional committee, known as the 
Stevenson committee, whose report 
was made to Congress in 1869, in which 
the ritual, constitution and history of this 
secret and armed political club were pub¬ 
lished, it will be seen that it had branches 
in almost every parish of the State of Lou¬ 
isiana. It will also be seen by reference 
to the report of the Stevenson committee, 
that there was a wide and extended terror 
throughout the State among Repub¬ 
licans, and especially colored people, and 
that the chief instrumentality of spread¬ 
ing this terror was this secret political 
organization. 

By reference to the same report it will 
.also be seen that planters and merchants 
throughout the State bound themselves in 
resolutions and in clubs to proscribe in 
business and in employment persons who 
voted against the Democratic party. By 
reference to the same authority it will 
be seen, by extracts from the different 
Democratic newspapers of the time in this 
State, that the Democratic press of the 
State in some cases advocated violence 
and bloodshed for political ends; in other 
cases covertly and secretly encouraged it, 
and in no case openly condemned it. Ex¬ 
tracts from the New Orleans Times, New 
Orleans Picayune, New Orleans Crescent , 
New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, St. 
Martin Courier, Shreveport Times, Plant¬ 
ers' Banner, Baton Rouge Democratic 
newspaper and Alexandria Democratic 
newspaper; and reference to the files of 


that year of these papers, will give abund¬ 
ant and astonishing proof as to the extent 
to which the newspaper press went in 
countenancing and encouraging blood¬ 
shed for political ends. 

During that year, from September until 
November, five horrible massacres of col¬ 
ored people were perpetrated by the Dem¬ 
ocrats. On the twenty-eighth of Septem¬ 
ber, 1868, in the parish of St. Landry, a 
massacre occurred of colored people, 
which lasted from three to six days, and 
during which from 200 to 300 people were 
killed; between the twentieth and thir¬ 
tieth of September, a similar massacre oc¬ 
curred in the parish of Bossier, which 
lasted from three to four days, during 
which over 200 colored people were killed; 
in the parish of Caddo, in the month of 
October, over forty colored people were 
killed; in the parish of Jefferson, in the 
month of October, forty persons were 
killed and wounded; in the parish of St. 
Bernard, in the month of October, an¬ 
other horrible massacre occurred, which 
lasted for three days, during which over 
1U0 people were killed and wounded; in the 
parish of Orleans, in the months of Sep¬ 
tember and October, two attacks were 
made upon Republican processions,- du¬ 
ring which about sixty persons were 
killed; in the parish of St. Mary, in Oc¬ 
tober, 1868, the sheriff and parish judge, 
both Republicans, were publicly assas¬ 
sinated at their houses by an armed body 
of men in the town of Franklin; similar 
acts of violence, and other outrages were 
perpetrated upon colored and white Re¬ 
publicans in thirty-five parishes of the 
State, a record of which is contained in 
the legislative and congressional reports 
to which I have referred. The total sum¬ 
ming up of the murders that took place 
for political reasons, in the months of 
September, October and November, 1868, 
as taken from official souces, is over 1000 
persons. 

By the official registration of that year 
the following parishes had the number of 
Republican votes set opposite their names: 


Orleans.15.005 

Avoyelles. 1,228 

East Baton Rouge. 2,835 

Bienville. 940 







3 


Bossier. 1,938 

Caddo. 2,894 

Calcasieu.. 198 

Caldwell. 435 

Catahoula. 861 

Claiborne. 1,659 

De Soto. 1,686 

Feliciana, East. 1,674 

Feliciana, West. 1,689 

Franklin. 579 

Jackson. 659 

Jefferson. 3,562 

Lafayette. 745 

Morehouse. 1,313 

Sabine. 321 

St. Bernard. 679 

St. Helena. 674 

St. Landry. 3,069 

St. Martin. 1,605 

St. Tammany. 556 

Union. 661 

Vermilion. 252 

Washington. 263 

Winn... 243 


Total.47,923 


Now, in the presidential election held in 
November, 1868, the vote for Grant was, 
in the same parishes, as follows: 


Orleans. 276 

Avoyelles. 520 

Baton Rouge, East. 1,247 

Bienville. 1 

Bossier. 1 

Caddo.*. 1 

Calcasieu. 9 

Caldwell. 28 

Catahoula. 150 

Claiborne.•. 2 

De Soto. none 

Feliciana, West. 1,136 

Feliciana, East. 644 

Franklin. none 

Jackson. none 

Jefferson. 672 

Latayette. none 

Morehouse..,. 1 

Sabine.*. 2 

St. Bernard. 1 

St. Helena. 136 

St. Landry. none 

St. Martin. 25 

St. Tammany. 470 

Union. 1 

Vermilion.none 

Washington. none 

Winn. 43 

Total.5,360 


So that out of 47,923 registered Repub¬ 
lican voters in the foregoing parishes, 
who had voted, in the spring previously, 
at the election held, for the Republican 
candidate for Governor, only 5360 
votes were cast for Grant. Out of 
nine of the above parishes, in which there 
were 11,604 registered Republican votes, 
only 19 were cast for Grant, being one 


and two in each parish, except one which 
gave nine. The table is given below: 

Republican Republican 
vote regie- vote for 
tered, spring, Grant, No- 
1868. vember, 1868. 


Bienville. 

. 940 

1 

Bossier. 

. 1,938 

1 

Caddo.... 

.2,894 

1 

Calcasieu. 

. 198 

9 

Claiborne.. 

. 1,659 

2 

Morehouse.. 

. 1,313 

1 

Sabine.. 

. 321 

2 

St. Bernard.. 

. 679 

1 

Union. 

.. 661 

1 


Total.11,604 19 

Out of seven of the above parishes in 
which there were 7253 Republican regis¬ 
tered votes, there was not one vote cast for 
Grant. The table is given below: 

Republican Republican 
vote regie- vote l or 
tered soring, Grant, No- 
1868. vember, 1868. 

DeSoto. 1,686 .... 

Franklin. 579 _ 

Jackson. 659 _ 

Lafayette. 745 - 

St. Landry. 3,069 _ 

Vermilion. 252 _ 

Washington. 263 _ 


Total.7,253 

These parishes have since cast the fol¬ 
lowing Republican vote. In 1870, for 
Graham, Auditor: 


Orleans.17,454 

Avoyelles. 1,823 

East Baton Rouge.2,440 

Bienville. 93 

Bossier. 732 

Caddo. 1,319 

Calcasieu. 3 

Caldwell. 340 

Catahoula. 459 

Claiborne. 523 

DeSoto. 1,032 

Feliciana, East.1,273 

Feliciana, West. 1,174 

Franklin. 226 

Jackson. 301 

Jeflerson.2,011 

Lafayette. 145 

Morehouse. 516 

Sabine. 432 

Sc. Bernard. 377 

St. Helena. 435 

St. Landry. 304 

St. Martin. 525 

St. Tammany. 433 

Union. 351 

Vermilion. 127 

Washington. 81 

Winn. 81 


Total.35,010 

IN 1872 FOR KELLOGG, GOVERNOR. 

Orleans.14,043 

Avoyelles. 1,885 

East Baton Rouge. 2,459 





















































































































4 


Bienville. 428 

Bossier.1,159 

Caddo.1,238 

Calcasieu. 96 

Caldwell. 369 

Catahoula. 878 

Claiborne. 942 

De Soto. 1,022 

Feliciana, East. 1,690 

Feliciana, West.1,309 

Franklin. 268 

Jackeon. 610 

Jefferson.1,732 

Lafayette. 482 

Morehouse. 1,262 

Sabine. 62 

St. Bernard. 469 

St. Helena. 541 

St. Landry. 1,890 

St. Martin. 718 

St. Tammany. 112 

Union. 489 

Vermilion. 228 

Washington. 176 

Winn... 109 


Total.36,666 

IN 1874 VOTE FOB DUBUCLET, TREASURER. 

Orleans.14,062 

Avoyelles. 1,426 

East Baton Rouge.2,546 

Bienville, (thrown out for violence). 

Bossier. 1,077 

Caddo. 1,343 

Calcasieu. 6 

Caldwell. 400 

Catahoula. 736 

Claiborne. 659 

De Soto, (no returns received). 

Feliciana, East. 1,688 

Feliciana, West. 1,358 

Franklin. 114 

Jackson. 37 

Jefferson. 1,650 

Lafayette. 530 

Morehouse. 1,017 

Sabine. 2 

St. Bernard. 607 

St. Helena. 536 

St Landry. 1,634 

St. Martin. 704 

St. Tammany. 581 

Union. 432 

Vermilion. 228 

Washington. 125 

Winn, (thrown out for violence). 


Total 


33,518 


The Republican registration for 1876 in 
those parishes is as follows: 


Orleans. 

Avoyelles.. 

East Baton Rouge 

Bienville. 

Bossier. 

Caddo. 

Calcasieu. 

Caldwell. 

Catahoula. 

Claiborne. 

De Soto. 

Feliciana, East...., 
Feliciana, West.... 


23,485 
, 1,887 
, 3,552 
612 
, 2,445 
, 4,043 
322 
516 
993 
1,334 
1,655 
2,127 
, 2,218 


Franklin. 

Jackson. 

Jefferson. 

Lafayette.... 
Morehouse... 

Sabine. 

St. Bernard.. 
St. Helena... 
St. Landry.. 
St. Martin... 
St. Tammany 

Union. 

Vermilion.... 
Washington.. 
Winn. 


439 

314 

2,400 

894 

1,830 

266 

898 

615 

3.890 

1,450 

759 

762 

309 

200 

112 


Total.59,737 

I have thus traced the history of these 
bulldozed parishes from 1868, and have 
shown that they had a registered colored 
vote of 59,737 in 1876, and a registered 
Republican vote of 47,923 in 1868, and 
that in all the years in which a peaceable 
election has been held in these parishes 
they have cast a uniform Republican vote 
of from 33,000 to 37,000, and yet that these 
same parishes in 1868 only gave Grant 5360 
votes. This, taken in connection with 
the history of the events of 1868, of which 
I have given a brief recital, all of which 
is corroborated by official records, will 
establish conclusively and beyond all 
doubt in the mind of every candid person 
the facts which Republicans have 
charged: that the Republican vote of 
these parishes in 1868 was forcibly and 
violently suppressed by acts of bloodshed, 
murder and massacre. 

These facts led to the election law of 
1870, and it was to prevent the recurrence 
of similar acts that the law was intended. 

In this connection, and before passing 
on, and while I am engaged in tables, let 
me give the vote of fifteen bulldozed par¬ 
ishes in 1876. These parishes are East 
Baton Rouge, Bienville, Caldwell, Clai¬ 
borne, East Feliciana, West Feliciana, 
Franklin, Grant, Jackson, Morehouse, 
Richland, Union, Washington and Winn. 

The Republican registration of these 
parishes in 1868 was as follows: 


Baton Rouge, East.2,835 

Bienville. 940 

Caldwell. 435 

Claiborne. 1,659 

Feliciana, E ast. 1,674 

Feliciana, West. 1,689 

Franklin. 579 

Grant (not organized) 

Jackson. 659 































































































5 


Morehouse... 1,313 

Ouachita. 1,483 

Richland (not organized) 

Union. 661 

Washington. 263 

Winn. 243 


Total.14,433 

In 1870 the same parishes gave the fol¬ 
lowing Republican vote: 

Baton Rouge, East.2,440 

Bienville. 93 

Caldwell. 340 

Claiborne... 523 

Feliciana, East. 1,273 

Feliciana, West. 1,174 

Franklin. 226 

Grant. 656 

Jackson. 301 

Morehouse. 516 

Ouachita. 1,299 

Richland, not organized. 

Union. 351 

Washington. 81 

Winn. 81 


Total. 9,354 

These same parishes in 1872 gave a Re¬ 
publican vote of— 

Baton Rouge, East.2,459 

Bienville... 428 

Caldwell. 369 

Claiborne. 942 

Feliciana, East. 1,696 

Feliciana, West. 1,309 

Franklin. 268 

Grant. 779 

Jackson. 610 

Morehouse. 1,262 

Ouachita. 1,441 

Richland. 218 

U nion. 489 

Washington. 176 

Winn. 109 


Total.12,555 


These parishes in 1874 gave the follow¬ 
ing Republican vote: 

Baton Rouge, East. 

Bienville (thrown out for violence)... 

Caldwell.... 

Claiborne. 

Feliciana, East. 

Feliciana, West. 

Franklin. 

Grant (thrown out for violence). 

Jackson . 

Morehouse. 

Ouachita. 

Richland. 

Union. 

W ashington... 

Winn (thrown out for violence). 

Total.10,216 

The registration in these same parishes 
for 1876, colored, is as follows: 

Baton Rouge, East.3,552 

Bienville. 012 


2,546 

*400 

659 

1,688 

1,358 

114 

“37 

1.017 

1,694 

146 

432 

125 


Caldwell. 516 

Claiborne. 1,334 

Feliciana, East.2,127 

Felioiana, West.2,218 

Franklin. 439 

Grant. 608 

Jackson. 314 

Morehouse. 1,830 

Ouachita.2,167 

Richland. 885 

Union. 762 

Washington. 250 

Winn. 112 


Total.17,726 


Thus we have seen that these fifteen 
parishes have a registered Republican 
vote of 17,726, and in peaceful years have 
cast a Republican vote of from 9300 to 
12,500. And yet these same fifteen par¬ 
ishes under the reign of terror, caused by 
the Knights of the White Camelia in 
1868, only cast 3935 Republican votes, as 
will be seen by the following table: 


Baton Rouge, East. 1247 

Bienville. 1 

Caldwell. 28 

Claiborne. 2 

Feliciana, East. 644 

Feliciana, West. 1136 

Franklin.none 

Grant (not organized). 

Jackson.none 

Morehouse. 1 

Ouachita. 832 

Richland (not organized). 

Union...... 1 

Washington.none 

Winn. 43 

Total. 3935 


And now these same fifteen parishes 
under the reign of terror in 1876 caused 
by the bulldozers, cast only 5758 Repub¬ 
lican votes, as claimed by the Democrats, 
as will be seen by the following table: 


Baton Rouge, East. 1651 

Bienville. 225 

Caldwell. 282 

Claiborne. 427 

Feliciana, East. 1 

Felioiana, West. 780 

Franklin. 129 

Grant. 322 

Jackson. 33 

Morehouse. 547 

Ouachita. 781 

Richland. 252 

Union. 87 

Washington. 163 

Winn. 78 

Total. 5758 


Is not the coincidence striking? 

Now, to bring out still more clearly the 
true disparity between the true Repub¬ 
lican vote of these parishes and this pre- 







































































































6 


tended vote under a reign of murder, I 
add the following table taken from the 
official census of persons over the age of 
twenty-one in those parishes, made in 
1875: 

OFFICIAL CENSUS OF VOTERS—BLACK MALES 
OVER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE. 


Baton Rouge, East.2,955 

Bienville. 686 

Caldwell. 456 

Claiborne. 1,290 

Feliciana, East. 2,244 

Feliciana, West.2,220 

Franklin. 753 

Grant. 485 

Jackson. 301 

Morehouse. 1.972 

Ouachita.2,102 

Richland. 861 

Union. 801 

Washington. 166 

Winn. 161 


Total.17,353 


By this same official return of the census 
of voters it is shown that the total num¬ 
ber of white voters in the State is 84,167, 
and the total number of black voters is 
104,192. 

The disparity between the Republican 
vote in these parishes as shown by the 
registration and the election before that, 
for President in 1868, and as again 
shown by the registrations and elections 
subsequent to 1868, is something enor¬ 
mous. Taken in connection with the his¬ 
tory of the times, as I have given it, the 
claim of the Republicans that this dis¬ 
parity was occasioned by overwhelming 
and wholesale violence, bloodshed and 
murder, and the intimidation resulting 
therefrom, seems to be clear and 
conclusive. In the Legislature of 
1869 the question was raised and 
was considered how a lawful remedy 
could be best applied, which would 
prevent the occurrence of such a state of 
things. 

The problem before the Legislature 
was this: In a state of things where 
secret political and semi-military asso¬ 
ciations, violent political feeling and the 
absence of the usual restraints of law and 
social order, could thus revolutionize by 
wholesale violence whole parishes, and 
make the elections held therein a mere 
mockery and farce, lacking every requisite 
of an election, what changes in the law 


should be made to counteract and remedy 
these wrongs? 

The principle of law recognized in this 
country and in England, which governs 
elections, is this: The first essential ele¬ 
ment of an election is freedom of choice. 
The ticket voted is not the vote, nor is 
the ticket in the ballot box the vote. What 
constitutes the ticket in the ballot box a 
vote, is the act of the voter in putting it in 
the box, at the lawfully appointed time, 
before the lawfully appointed officers 
for that purpose, and of his own free 
will and choice. Another principle of 
law well recognized is, that violence 
and force at an election renders such 
election null and void. That principle is 
well laid down and illustrated in Cush¬ 
ing’s “Law and Practice of Legislative 
Assemblies,” in which the authorities are 
numerously cited. 

There was no question that in such a 
state of facts as had occured in the par¬ 
ishes above named the election was an 
absolute nullity. There was no difficulty 
in declaring this. The problem was 
how and where to lodge the authori¬ 
ty to legally ascertain this nullity 
before the returns were duly made 
and declared. In any ordinary condition 
of affairs, and in most of the States, the 
remedy could have been made by enlarg¬ 
ing the jurisdiction of the ordinary re¬ 
turning officers. The returning officer of 
an election in the United States is neither 
an executive, nor a ministerial, nor a ju¬ 
dicial officer. He is an officer whose 
duties and functions are peculiar to a 
government whose offices are filled by 
elections, and whose citizens on the days 
of election perform the high governmental 
function of voting. The voter on that day 
acts as a high and integral part of the gov¬ 
ernment. In this act he is performing his 
individual portion of a grave and tremen¬ 
dous governmental act. The returning 
officers on that day perform duties which 
are, some of them, ministerial, some of 
them executive, and some of them judi¬ 
cial in their qualities. There was nothing 
in the nature or extent of powers which 
might legally be imposed on returning 
officers which could have prevented 





















the General Assembly from vesting 
the judges of election at the various 
polls with the powers necessary to 
have enabled them to have rejected votes 
openly and palpably presented under du¬ 
ress and coercion; and in case where an 
extensive conspiracy and wholesale ter¬ 
rorism should prevent a whole neighbor¬ 
hood or parish from voting at all, from 
clothing the returning officers with power 
to so certify the facts that an ordinary 
canvassing board could have rejected the 
pretended result of such election as a 
nullity. But the difficulty here met was 
this: The same violence and force which 
could intimidate and prevent whole neigh¬ 
borhoods and parishes from voting, would 
also, in the nature of the case, as it bad 
done in practice, overcome and intimi¬ 
date the local returning officers, so that 
they would not perform their duties, and 
thus, practically, the proposed remedy 
would be of no effect. It was lor this 
reason, that the Legislature of 1869 and 
1870, took away from the commissioners 
of election all the functions of returning 
officers and left them merely ministerial 
and clerical officers to perform certain 
intermediary acts in the election, 
between the first deposit of the votes and 
the final count of the same by the proper 
returning officers. And in order to re¬ 
move the returning officers from the 
theatre of such scenes of violence and in¬ 
timidation, and to place them in a posi¬ 
tion where they would be able in security 
and perfect freedom to exercise their du¬ 
ties, the Legislature took all those powers of 
making returns, of counting the votes and 
of declaring the result of elections, from 
these scattered local officers, and vested 
them wholly and completely in five persons 
to be chosen as directed by law, who were 
to be the sole returning officers for all 
elections in the State; and then to these 
five returning officers the Legislature gave 
the additional power, when assembled to¬ 
gether, of receiving and determining evi¬ 
dence as to fraud, intimidation and vio¬ 
lence which had nullified any election at 
any poll or in any parish; and where this 
had been sufficient under the law to ren¬ 
der the election null at any poll, or at 


any number of polls, to ascertain 
this nullity, and when ascertained to 
declare it, and to carry it into effect by 
rejecting from the count the votes so 
made null and void. 

This fundamental change in the num¬ 
ber and authority of the returning offi¬ 
cers, is the only feature in which the 
election law of Louisiana differs mate¬ 
rially from those of other States. The 
other differences are merely those of de¬ 
tails to carry out and enforce this feature. 

As a member of the Senate, in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly which enacted this law, 
and as chairman of the committee from 
which it was reported, it became my duty 
to prepare and draft the bill, which after¬ 
wards became a law. Act No. 100, ap¬ 
proved March 16, 1870, is the law thus 
passed. It was written and drafted solely 
and exclusively by me, and under my 
direction. Of the original sections of the 
act, which embodied this distinctive fea¬ 
ture, to which I have referred, which are 
sections one, five, twenty-nine, thirty, 
thirty-five, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-three, 
fifty-four, fifty-five and fifty-six, I was the 
author. This act was afterward amended 
and re-enacted in 1872, by act No. 98, ap¬ 
proved November 20, 1872. Section one of 
this act is the same as in the original act; 
section five of the original act is section 
seven of the new act; section twenty-nine 
of the original act is section twenty-six 
of the new act; section thirty of the 
original act was repealed; section thirty- 
five of the original act is embodied in sec¬ 
tions twenty-nine and one of the new act; 
sections fifty-one and fifty-two of the old 
act were embodied in sections fifty-six, 
fifty-seven and fifty-eight of the new act; 
section fifty-three of the old act is section 
forty-three of the new act; section fifty- 
four, altered and amended, is section two 
of the new act; section fifty-five of the 
old act is section three of the new act; 
section fifty-six of the old act is section 
forty-four of the new act. The only material 
change made by the new act, was the 
change in the manner by which these five 
returning officers should be selected. The 
principal theory of the act of 1872, and 
its distinctive features, are identical with 




8 


those of the act of 1870. Act No. 19 of 
1873, and act No. 7 of 1875, amended the 
act of 1872 somewhat in relation to the 
appointment of commissioners of elec¬ 
tion. The act of 1870 made the commis¬ 
sioners appointive by the supervisors of 
registration; the act of 1872 made 
them appointive by the police ju¬ 
ries of the several parishes; and 
the acts of 1873 and 1875 again made 
them appointive by the supervisors of 
registration. 

It will be seen that these five return¬ 
ing officers are neither a canvassing 
board nor a returning board; and there¬ 
fore there is no analogy between their 
powers and functions and those of can¬ 
vassing boards of other States. These five 
officers are the returning officers of the 
State for all elections. There are no re¬ 
turns and can be none, of any election 
but the returns which these officers 
make. In the eye of the law 
they are present at each poll. The com¬ 
missioner who receives the vote and counts 
it, makes his sworn statement to them of 
that count. He is simply the intermediary 
functionary between the voter and these 
officers, who receive and count and re¬ 
turn his vote. The commissioners make 
no returns; they have none of the judicial 
functions which belong to the returning 
officers; they simply receive and count the 
tickets, and make a sworn statement of 
their count to the returning officers. Their 
functions are exclusively clerical and min¬ 
isterial. It is the returns of these five offi¬ 
cers, and these alone, which, under the 
law, constitute the prima facie evidence of 
the result of the election. Their power 
to inquire into and determine the results 
of violence and intimidation where alleged, 
is not the power of counting out or count¬ 
ing in votes, but the power to decide 
whether alleged votes are votes or 
not; it is the power to examine into cases 
where an election has already been 
nullified by acts of violence and so 
forth, and if the nullity is proved 
according to law, to ascertain and declare 
that nullity. These powers do not differ 
in their nature and character from those 
vested in returning officers by the laws of 


other States; they differ only in the ex¬ 
tent to which these powers may be exer¬ 
cised. That extent is enlarged by our 
law to meet the peculiar circumstances 
and exigencies of our political condition 
as I have above described it. 

I will simply add that the question 
with regard to certain parishes of 
this State known as the bulldozed 
parishes, is not whether their votes 
shall be counted out or counted in; 
it is whether the tickets deposited in the 
ballot boxes in these parishes on the day 
of the election were votes or not votes. 
I believe that if a true and impartial his¬ 
tory of the events which have occurred in 
any one of these parishes should be given, 
which should include an account of the 
secret or open armed political societies; 
which should include a history of the 
murders, whippings, assassinations, burn¬ 
ings and other acts of outrage and vio¬ 
lence, traceable directly to political rea¬ 
sons, and committed for political ob¬ 
jects; which should also include the 
evidence of the colored people of those 
parishes themselves as to attempts made 
to force them to join Democratic clubs 
and to vote the Democratic ticket, or to 
abstain from voting the Republican ticket; 
and which should also include a tabular 
statement of the census and registration 
and previous votes of these parishes, it will 
appear conclusively to every candid and 
impartial mind, that the occurrences 
of 1868 have been repeated in 
these parishes in 1876, and that in 
law and in fact there was no election 
at most of the polls in these parishes; 
and that the ballot boxes, instead of 
containing votes, contain simply the rec¬ 
ords of an organized, premeditated and 
deliberate system of violence and inti¬ 
midation such as has no parallel in any 
other State of the Union, excepting those 
States where the difference in population 
and the political lines drawn between the 
populations are similar to those existing 
here. 

I see in the Chicago Tribune of Novem¬ 
ber 18 a supposed case stated in Chicago 
to illustrate these late elections in Louis¬ 
iana. It is as follows: 



9 


Let us see if we can bring home the ex¬ 
isting state of things in the bulldozed par¬ 
ishes of Louisiana to the comprehension of 
our Democratic readers in this city. We 
premise that the colored men in the South 
are as nearly unanimously Republican as 
the Catholic Irish are Democrats. It re¬ 
quires fully as much persuasion to change 
a Southern negro into a Democrat as it 
would here in Chicago to change a Demo¬ 
cratic Irishman into a Republican. Bridge¬ 
port oasts about 3100 Democratic votes and 
1100 Republican votes; of the former per¬ 
haps 3O0O are Irish Catholics, and of the 
latter 1075 are Protestants. Suppose on the 
morning after the election it had been an¬ 
nounced that Bridgeport had voted as fol¬ 
lows: Hayes and the whole Republican 
ticket, 1753; Tilden and the Democratic 
ticket 3—what would the Times have said? 
How would Perry H. Smith, General Cam¬ 
eron and Miles Kehoe have talked? What 
opinion would Captain Connet, Tom Foley, 
Mike Evans and Dave Thornton give of the 
causes that produced such a result? The 
astonishment of the Republicans of New 
Orleans was equally great when they learn¬ 
ed that the overwhelming Republican par¬ 
ish of East Feliciana had been returned 
1753 for Tilden and 3 for Hayes, when 
every man in Louisiana knows there is a 
Republican majority in + he parish of be¬ 
tween 1000 and 2000. Suppose, further¬ 
more, that the Irish sixth ward had been re¬ 
turn 500 majority for Hayes, the case would 
have been no worse than the return of 800 
Democratic majority from West Felioiana 
instead of 1800 Republican, which it can 
give. Suppose the Irish seventh had been 
returned at 600 majority for Hayes and the 
Irish eigth ward at 1070 for Hayes, instead 
of 1400 and 1800 for Tilden, then you have 
a parallel case to what was done in More¬ 
house and Ouachita parishes against the 
Republicans. The registered vote in West 
Feliciana is 406 Democrats and 2248 Repub¬ 
licans, and yet this parish, with its 1642 Re¬ 
publican majority, is returned by the Con¬ 
federate thieves who conducted the election 
as having cast 465 majority for Sam Til 
den! The registered vote of Morehouse 
parish is 938 Democrats and 1830 Republi¬ 
cans, but it is returned by the scoun¬ 
drels who bulldozed it at 528 for 
Tilden! Ouachita parish has 925 regis¬ 
tered Democratic votes and 2167 Repub¬ 
lican, but the bulldozers have returned 
a majority of 1070 for Tilden! No man but 
an ingrained scoundrel will uphold, justify 
or defend fraud, corruption and villainy of 
this sort. Of course the Returning Board, 
upon proof of these alleged frauds, must 
throw out the spurious majority returned 
in those bulldozed parishes, and, while this 
is as far as the law allows them to proceed, 
yet then the Republicans will be deprived 
of the 5000 majority they have in those par¬ 
ishes. And now the country is threatened 
with civil war by the Democrats who ex¬ 
pect office or have bets pending if the 
fraudulent votes of those bullbozed par¬ 
ishes are rejected and Tilden thereby loses 
the State of Louisiana! 

The illustration is a forcible and true 
one in almost all particulars, but it lacks 
2 


one very essential feature which belongs 
to the real case as it exists in Louisiana. 

I will complete the illustration of the 
Chicago Tribune by adding the missing 
feature: Suppose that in Bridgeport, 
some twelve months before the election, 
Tom Foley should have been hung by a 
Republican mob in the public square of 
the city. And suppose that Mike Evans, 
while on a visit to Peoria, had been kid¬ 
napped by a mob of Chicago Republicans 
at night, under the pretext of a pretended 
warrant, and had been bound and tied 
to a horse and carried by his captors out 
of Peoria on the road toward Chicago. 

And suppose that while on his way to 
the latter city in the hands of his captors, 
another mob of Chicago Republicans, 
having come from that city for the pur¬ 
pose, should have taken him from the 
hands of bis first captors and tied him to 
a tree and shot him to death with a hun¬ 
dred bullets? 

Suppose, then, that the Chicago Repub¬ 
licans had organized themselves into 
secret military organizations, with cap¬ 
tains, majors and colonels, and with rifles 
and ammunition. Suppose, then, that 
they had driven every Democratic official 
in Chicago out of the county, after hav¬ 
ing forced them to resign their offices? 
Suppose, then, that these Republican 
bulldozers had ridden through Bridge¬ 
port in armed bands nightly for twelve 
months prior to the election? Suppose 
that during these night rides they had 
shot thirty or fifty Catholic Irish; had 
whipped a couple of hundred more; had 
driven from the county Perry Smith, 
General Cameron, Miles Kehoe, Captain 
Connett, Dave Thornton and every other 
prominent Catholic Irish Democrat in the 
city? 

Suppose they had broken up every 
Irish Democratic club? 

Suppose that they had burned several 
Irish Democratic houses? 

Suppose that they had united in a 
league to refuse every Democratic Irish¬ 
man employment? 

Suppose that they had threatened to 
discharge every one of them that were al¬ 
ready in employment? 



10 


Suppose that they had sought to com¬ 
pel them to join the Bepublican clubs by 
making that a condition of their im¬ 
munity from further persecution, calling 
this protection. 

And then suppose that the Bepublicans 
owned all the property, the stores, the 
banks, the railroads, the telegraphs, the 
newspapers, the schools and everything, 

And suppose that the Irish Catholic 
Democrats were ignorant, uneducated and 
poor, so poor that they were in absolute 
depen dance from day to day upon their 
employers for their rations of bread and 
meat. 

Add this to the illustration above, 
and it will be somewhat of a parallel with 
the cases in East Feliciana and some other 
parishes in Louisiana. 

I may be allowed to add that in my 
judgment the gravest feature of the situa¬ 
tion as to our State and the whole coun¬ 
try is this: The issue, to my mind, pre¬ 
sented by the two political parties in 
this section of the country to the rest 
of the country is this: Shall two 
political parties be allowed to sub¬ 
sist in this State upon tiie same con¬ 
ditions that they exist in other States— 
that is, shall the right of every citizen 
and suffragan to participate in the gov¬ 
ernment on election day, to assist and co¬ 
operate in societies and clubs and organi¬ 
zations of his political party be recog- 
nixed, guaranteed, and made an honest, 
actual fact, so that whether it be a white 
man and a Democrat, or a black 
man and a Bepublican, each one shall be 
allowed in the most perfect freedom and 
security to join and act with his political 
associates, as his own interest and wishes 
or prejudices shall induce him, without, 
other influences being brought to bear 
upon him than are brought to bear upon 
a citizen and suffragan in any other State? 

In this case the black voters would be 
treated just as the white, Irish or German, 
or Scandinavian voters in any Northern 
State. No extraneous pressure; no conspir¬ 
acy to lorce them to vote against their 


predilections or wishes; no attempts to 
compel them to vote against their wishes 
in the interest of their employers would 
be allowed. If not allowed, this State, 
and several other Southern States, are 
honestly and lawfully Bepublican by 
large majorities. 

On the other hand, if the attempt of 
the Democrats to obtain control of this 
State in a manner similar to that in which 
the control of Mississippi has been gained 
should be successful, we shall have then 
the spectacle before the country of a 
solid white vote marshaled and led by 
the most extreme and bitter elements of 
that vote, and having under their com¬ 
plete control a dark mass of semi-serf, 
black voters, voting under orders as they 
used to work under orders. In addition 
to this, that control once having been ob¬ 
tained, we will also find a large respect¬ 
able white element, composed of conser¬ 
vative, law-abiding, peaceful white busi¬ 
ness men and citizens, who by the same 
order of terror which drives the negro 
to vote against his wishes and for 
his ■ master, will also be compelled 
to keep silence and tacitly to subrftit to a 
condition of things of which they hon¬ 
estly disapprove. 

Should this latter condition of affairs 
obtain, there will then be a solid white 
South governed by the leading ultra 
spirits of that section, keeping in hand 
and under subjection the white conserva¬ 
tive element by threats of ostracism in 
business and society, and having under 
perfect mastery and control a solid black 
South, voting, as they used to work, for 
their masters and owners. And 
this combination will dictate to 
the Democracy, and the Democracy will 
dictate to the country, and the solid- 
white South with the solid black South 
will govern the country more absolutely 
than it did in the palmy days of the slave 
empire. 

Bespectfully yours, 

HUGH J. CAMPBELL. 

























' 











I'.’*’ 




. 

























































* 




























































■ 











































































































. 











































































LBl'L '05 
















































. 









































































































































UBRARY of congress 


0 033 239 131 8 





